Western Separation

[Toro]

Trudeau repeatedly admitted to driving the national to record levels. He never apologized for it or tried to downplay his role in creating the massive debt. Trudeau tried to argue that his, admittedly, expensive social programs were more important than the debt he was incurring.

I saw an interview with Trudeau on CBC many years ago saying that the debt he created was a mistake, but it was also what most other nations in the world were doing at the time, and thought to be correct.

[mirror]

snoop....don't be such a dickhead. He asked you to use the name he wants. Show some respect.

Gotta love this column out of Calgary today and it is a good response to the Quebec separatist nuballs as well:

Separated from sense

By JOSE RODRIGUEZ -- Calgary Sun

Well, it's official. Life sucks so bad here west of the big smoke that it's time to consider calling it quits on Canada.

At least that's what a recent poll done for a Western-based magazine suggests.

The poll shows that 35.6% of people from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. think Westerners should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country.

Not surprisingly, my home province of Alberta leads the pack with 42% support for the idiotic idea.

Perhaps it's my own naivete, but I always pictured western separatists as aging, overalled, hillbillies no one ever heard from until it was time to, well, do a poll about separation.

You know the type, happily hunting and fishing in some backwoods somewhere with their pit bulls tied to a rusty truck bumper and their cousin-turned-wife fixing up roadkill on the trailer stove.

Turns out, it's not that way at all.

According to the poll conducted by Lethbridge Community College political science professor Faron Ellis, separatist sentiment is highest among young people.

Seems 37% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 agreed it was time to consider breaking away from Canada.

With more than one-in-three of the 1,448 people polled willing to turn their backs on our country, I figure it may be time for a healthy helping of perspective.

Yes, life sucks as a Canadian.

All those first-world luxuries such as running water, freedom of choice and obligatory health care and education.

The safety and security of knowing you can walk to the corner store after dark without fear of being shot.

Then, there's that whole issue of universal envy from all those who'd sell a kidney or even their first-born just for a chance to be Canadian.

In Alberta, the problem's even worse.

With virtually non-existent unemployment, there's no excuse for not working and the lowest taxation in the country only leads to unnecessary spending.

Yes, life's pretty crappy out here in the neglected West.

And if you believe that, I've got a nice piece of ocean-front property in Red Deer with your name on it.

Sure, things aren't perfect.

There's too much power concentrated in the Prime Minister's office, too much stupid spending and legitimate democratic reforms such as an elected Senate are being ignored.

But separate from Canada?

That's like scrapping a Cadillac because it has a flat tire.

And I'd argue that those who support and promote separation, don't want to separate at all.

It's all a ploy -- born out of justified frustration -- to get the feds to listen.

It is, however, a risky ploy made even more dangerous by the fact it's beginning to garner support among young westerners.

Now, as much as it pains me to admit it, I'm closer to 40 than I am to 30 so I may not be in the best position to dispense advice of any kind to young people.

But most folks I know under 30 have better things to do with their time than contemplate the West's role in confederation.

Important things such as drinks after work, planning the weekend or doing their laundry.

If you really must express your anger with the feds, there are plenty of ways to do that without slicing up my country.

Form a club, write a letter, march on Parliament. Heck, create your own secret handshake.

But don't openly muse about taking the scissors to a country that has become the envy of the world.

It only shows your lack of perspective.

[shoop]

snoop....don't be such a dickhead. He asked to use the name he wants. Show some respect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I consider that name to be insulting and therefore would request that if you must call me a dickhead you use Shoop Doggy Dickhead, as that is my real name.

(Seriously though, you are asking me to show some respect to somebody else after calling me a dickhead?)

The point about the utter lameness and hypocrisy of complaining about others whinging than crying over his name is valid though.

Besides, Manic Mikey is the guy who referred to himself as an 'urban intellectual' but still won't answer if that means he works at Chapters or Starbucks.

[Guest eureka]

.

Trudeau repeatedly admitted to driving the national to record levels.

Trudeau did, indeed, deive the debt he inherited (as Mad Michael states) to record levels. He did it justifiably and for cause that we all benefit from today; although the neocons are trying very determinedly to break down our civilization.

However, the amount of debt "created" in the Trudeau years - the difference between inherited and legacy - is not more than one third of what was addedd by his Conservative successor. I don't seem to recall what particular benefits we may have received from Mulroney's addition. Unless Mila's shoes and the economic stimulus from her purchases was a benefit of the inattention to the state of the economy.

[shoop]

[However, the amount of debt "created" in the Trudeau years - the difference between inherited and legacy - is not more than one third of what was addedd by his Conservative successor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly I don't understand this. What do you mean by "the difference between inherited and legacy"?

[Guest eureka]

Actually, Toro, I think it is a very Canadian thing to say: or would have been a generation ago.

There was a time when Canadian tolerance and patience did not extend to oppression and injustice. We fought against those things.

I would just like to see that spirit of the last generation come back into Canadian life. It seems that this really is the "Me" generation that does nothing but cry about its own wants.

[Argus]

.

Trudeau repeatedly admitted to driving the national to record levels.

Trudeau did, indeed, deive the debt he inherited (as Mad Michael states) to record levels.

That's not actually what Mad said, he said it was Mulroney's fault.

However, the amount of debt "created" in the Trudeau years - the difference between inherited and legacy - is not more than one third of what was addedd by his Conservative successor.

He inherited almost nothing, and quadrupled spending. And you cannot separate the debt he left to Mulroney in a time of sky high interest rates from the cost of servicing that debt during a deep recession.

[crazymf]

There was a time when Canadian tolerance and patience did not extend to oppression and injustice. We fought against those things.

I would just like to see that spirit of the last generation come back into Canadian life. It seems that this really is the "Me" generation that does nothing but cry about its own wants.

BANG!! That's the sound of hitting the nail right squarely on the head.

Agreed from this redneck 100 percent.

[Guest eureka]

I think we did that one on another thread, Argus. Trudeau inherited a debt of, I think $20 billion not a debt free situation as some like ti claim. I believe that the amount of increase during his time in office was about $114 billion.

The imcrease during the Mulroney years was far more than the total of interest payments that would have accrued. The bulk of the debt from Mulroney was in new debt occasioned by spending and tax cuts. n incompetent and corrupt administration was responsible, not interest rates.

The peak year was, from memory, 1993. Both the debt and interest began to drop following that under the watch of Chretien and Martin.

[Argus]

I think we did that one on another thread, Argus. Trudeau inherited a debt of, I think $20 billion not a debt free situation as some like ti claim. I believe that the amount of increase during his time in office was about $114 billion.

"Nearly every move that [Former Prime Minister Brian] Mulroney made while in office was governed not by his own budgets, but by Trudeau's fiscal legacy. During his sixteen years in power, Trudeau turned the nearly balanced books he had inherited into a $38.5 billion deficit and increased the national debt by 1,200 per cent, from $17 billion to more than $200 billion. By the time Mulroney took over, less than 15 per cent of the annual budget was made up of discretionary spending, so that he was robbed of any manoeuvring room to pay for the many promises he had made."

- Peter C. Newman

The peak year was, from memory, 1993. Both the debt and interest began to drop following that under the watch of Chretien and Martin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chretien took power in June of 93. The deficit in 1993 was $41.02b. In 1994 it was $42.02. In 1995 it was $37.06. It wasn't until 1996, 4 years later, that the Liberals succeded in bringing the deficit down to less than it was in Mulroney's final year in office. This was, unsurprisingly, a year when interest rates took a steep fall, lowering the debt servicing costs, and unemployment began to fall, as well. The worldwide recession was easing off, and business was beginning to really pick up in the US.

[kimmy]

I think the are about 11 billion reasons to separate.

By this reasoning, Toronto alone has 20 billion reasons to separate.

Well, Dalton McGuinty pegged it at $23 billion for all of Ontario, but the general theme is the same. More total dollars from Ontario, but considerably more per-capita dollars from Alberta.

The SPA party could advocate change to the electoral system in Alberta and Canada without pushing seperation. Advocating seperation, like terrorism, is an morally unacceptable form of political expression since both ideologies justify social violance and chaos in the name of correcting 'injustices'.

Well, for the sake of argument, one could say that the federal government has shown nothing but disdain for initiatives on senate reform or electoral reform, and that their disinterest has contributed to people seeking a stronger means of expressing desire for change.

-k

[Riverwind]

Well, for the sake of argument, one could say that the federal government has shown nothing but disdain for initiatives on senate reform or electoral reform, and that their disinterest has contributed to people seeking a stronger means of expressing desire for change.

I agree that the apparent stalemate on electoral change has left people understandably frustrated, however, does that mean there is no alternative but to 'up the ante' by making threats of violence? I say no. Look to the west: British Columbia has started a process of electoral reform that will likely result in some form of PR being in place by the next election. Other provinces are looking at similar measures. If enough provinces reform their electoral systems and people get comfortable with the new systems then it will be a lot easier to fix the system at the federal level.

Any useful change takes time and often the incremental approach produces better results in the long term. The federation is evolving and it not the same as it was 40 years ago and a lot of the changes have been initiated by politicians coming out of the west like Preston Manning. I realize that having western ideas 'stolen' by eastern politicians is not the same as having the guys who came up with the ideas in power, however, such influence on the national political scene should not be completely ignored either.

[canadian_conservative]

wow I have been to this site a few times and it looks pretty good its almost like this one. You can talk about all the same topics pretty much. http://politics411.mywowbb.com/

By the way ill eat my shoe if the west ever seperates

[I miss Reagan]

I regret missing the boat on the Western separation threads as this tends to be the main reason for posting, to defend the West and the US against Eastern Canada's hubris and utter arrogance. Obviously I'm elated to see the numbers increasing, especially among young people as this is usually where change begins. I'm also happy lately to hear from normal, everyday Albertans who are in favor of looking in to separating from Canada rather than the usual radical reactionaries.

Unfortunately I can't say that I've read the posts in this thread, but if it's anything like the other threads I'm probably posting just in time for the second circle.

By the way ill eat my shoe if the west ever seperates

Hope you like the taste of rubber. Once Quebec leaves it leaves the door wide open for us! I can't wait!!

[Riverwind]

Obviously I'm elated to see the numbers increasing, especially among young people as this is usually where change begins.

Young people are also the most likely to do stupid things without regard to the consequences and leave the mess for the adults to clean up. How would a typical American react if Texas, California or Alaska starting talking about separating? Not very kindly I am sure. I am also pretty sure the US military would be sent in pretty quickly if any state legislature had the termerity to declare a UDI (referendum results notwithstanding). The US is a older nation and got though its growing pains and ended up being must stronger as a result. Unfortunately they had to go through a pretty bloody civil war to learn certain lessons. I hope Canada will be able to learn from the US experience and avoid the national bloodletting that seperation would bring.

Alberta and Quebec would be much, much poorer places after any seperation than before - oil wealth not withstanding. If you believe that deliberating creating 10-15 years of political and economic uncertainty and plumenting dollar would have no impact on the lives of Albertans then you are sadly in denial.

[I miss Reagan]

Young people are also the most likely to do stupid things without regard to the consequences and leave the mess for the adults to clean up.

I am the last guy to argue that young people make decisions more based on emotion rather than sound reasoning. What's that old W. Churchill gem? something like "anyone under 30 who isn't a liberal has no heart, anyone over 30 who's a liberal has no brain". What is interesting to me is that young people are tending to side with seccession rather than the liberal policies of Eastern Canada. Whether or not young people can make correct decisions, change often starts with them in the streets and on the campus.

How would a typical American react if Texas, California or Alaska starting talking about separating? Not very kindly I am sure. I am also pretty sure the US military would be sent in pretty quickly if any state legislature had the termerity to declare a UDI (referendum results notwithstanding). The US is a older nation and got though its growing pains and ended up being must stronger as a result. Unfortunately they had to go through a pretty bloody civil war to learn certain lessons.

Ya, I've thought about that. I've questions my own motivations and asked myself if my support for separation is reasonable. The difference I see is that the United States were set up for the purpose of having some semblance of autonomy. Different colonies were formed because of different beliefs. In most respects each of the states in the US has far more power to govern themselves than the provinces do in Canada. As far as a bloody civil war, I just don't think it will happen. Canadians are such passive and appeasing people that the last thing we would do is go to war. There isn't enough passion in this country for bloodshed.

Alberta and Quebec would be much, much poorer places after any seperation than before - oil wealth not withstanding. If you believe that deliberating creating 10-15 years of political and economic uncertainty and plumenting dollar would have no impact on the lives of Albertans then you are sadly in denial

I disagree. There will be many complications and issues but I think each will do just fine. There are a few possible scenarios for Canada's break up, among them B.C, AB. and Sask uniting when Quebec leaves. Or Alberta even joining the US. Even if Alberta was on it's own we have been strengthening relations with the US independent of the federal government for some time. Our oil makes us relevant to the US despite our small size. Oil will be important for at least the next 20 years and given our oil sands (the second largest supply of oil in the world) we'll be sitting pretty for a long time. And since the last oil bust we have been rapidly diversifying our economy so as not to soley rely on oil. Calgary is already experiencing the inertia and bringing in of diverse business because of our size and educated population. I am not too concerned about leaving the Ontario "rust belt" behind.

[canadian_conservative]

Hope you like the taste of rubber. Once Quebec leaves it leaves the door wide open for us! I can't wait!!

There is know way that you will be allowed to seperate at all, it will not be allowed. I bet you one thing either the 1st Quebec referndum was a sham and it was all a setup where the federal government bought votes for Quebec to stay in Canada or lied and reversed the results and made them up so Quebec couldnt leave, it may sound riddiculus but thats my theory.

My second theory is if this was a fair vote and Quebec won the right to seperate I bet you they wouldnt be allowed, the PM at that time would have laid down his fist and said no. Riddiculus? think about it.

I just think that Canada is not breaking up anytime soon their is know way no how. Quebec is not leaveing and the west is not leaveing not anytime soon.

If I had the choice I would tell all the sepertists of Canada that they joined confederation and forever will they stay in it the only way that that they will sepereate is to take up arms against Canada just like the the South and the North of the USA and guess who won the federlist north.

[Guest eureka]

We did do that on the other thread, Argus. The Recession was over before Mulroney left office. Interest rates had been falling and Mulroney had cut taxes instead of the deficit. Much like Harris in Ontario who created a monster.

[Guest eureka]

IMR!

I have trouble deciding whether you or Bakunin is the thickest. Can anyone help in that determination. There is some excuse for Bakunin since he is immersed in the propaganda of his province. There is none for you.

How many times do we go around the circle on your continued lying about the weakness of the US federal government compared to Canda and the Provinces.

For you are lying since I have proved to you beyond even the shadow of a doubt that the US is a highly centralized federation while Canada is the most decentralized nation in the world.

I once thought the "debate" with you over this was interesting and informative. Now, I think you are sick. You are merely trying to peddle a perversion on the impressionable youngsters who participate or look in.

Just like change does NOT come from the young but from the young who have been either seduced or informed by older men.

[newbie]

Well, I'm not holding my breath nor packing my bags. Every few years this old Alberta separation issue rears its ugly head, creates a little dust and then dies until another perceived Liberal blunder. Its old news and wearing pretty thin. Young folks like this sort of thing, but most of them grow up and realize how foolish it all is.

[Guest eureka]

What if we do start discussing possible terms of separation of Alberta?Let's start from the beginning, shall we.

In the beginning, all the territory of Alberta belonged to all Canadians. For the purpose of good government new Provinces were created and assigned certain territory and jurisdiction.

Then, a buried treasure was found in Alberta, particularly in the North. Now, Canadians when they created Alberta, intended an area of Canada that would be part of a prosperous nation sharing the wealth of all as Ontario and Quebec shared with Alberta until that Province was able to stand on its own feet.

Never was the intention of Canadians to give up their birthright to be the exclusive possession of any minority.

Therefore, if Alberta should ever go its own way, whatever that may mean, Canada should take back its gifts: gifts that were conditional on full and equal participation in the country of Canada.

In short, we would have to take over the oil snads for the benefit of Canadians to whom they rightly belong.

[Riverwind]

What is interesting to me is that young people are tending to side with secession rather than the liberal policies of Eastern Canada.

Churchill's saying reflected the generational politics of the time. An updated version would be something like that "if you 25 and you don't want to reject the ideas of your parents then you have no heart. if you are 45 and you haven't figured out that the your parent's ideas weren't so bad then you have no brain."

The difference I see is that the United States were set up for the purpose of having some semblance of autonomy.  Different colonies were formed because of different beliefs.  In most respects each of the states in the US has far more power to govern themselves than the provinces do in Canada.

Can you back that statement up with fact or are you just repeating what some seperatist said? There is a theoretical differences between the US and Canadian constitutions that gives any 'unspecified powers' to the states instead of the federal govt. This means that the US states sound on paper a lot more autonomous than they actually are. In practice, Canada provinces have considerably more autonomy than US states. I am trying to find some online links that back up my statement - google did not turn up anything that supported or contradicted my assertion. I am going on recollections of my American history courses.

I disagree.  There will be many complications and issues but I think each will do just fine.

I am talking about the short term costs - not the long term viability. The uncertainty related to the breakup will last many years and cost billions in transition costs. Furthermore, foreign investment in the non-resource sector will likely be scared away. For that matter, a lot of Canadian investment will be 'parked' in the US or elsewhere pending the outcome. This will severely damage the non-resource sector which Alberta will need to have when the oil runs out. In short, the opportunity cost is huge and it would take decades for even Alberta to recover from that loss which will be much more than the theoretical 'losses' from staying in confederation.

[Guest eureka]

Interest Rates

I don't think this supports the idea that Mulroney was the victim of interest rates. Coupled with the fact that the recession of 1991 had been over for some time before he was turfed out. And that he had the recovery "boom" of most of the 1980's

[Argus]

Interest Rates

I don't think this supports the idea that Mulroney was the victim of interest rates. Coupled with the fact that the recession of 1991 had been over for some time before he was turfed out. And that he had the recovery "boom" of most of the 1980's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What recovery boom are you talking about? Interest rates were in double digits throughout the 1980s. A five year mortgage in 1984 was 13.59%, and it didn't drop below 10% until 1992. "official unemployment was 10.5% in 1985. Now it dropped from horrible to just "bad" for a few years after that, but then rose again. Over by 1991? The "official" unemployment rates were, in 91: 10.4%, 92: 11.3%, 93:11.2%, 94:10.4%

[Guest eureka]

The recession was officially over in 1991. The previous major one was over in 1981. Mulroney had the benefit of the long recovery between those. The unemployment rates were something he should have done something about instead of exacerbating the situation with his fiscal policies and hanging on to Reagan and Thatcher's Monetarism tail.